Is Normandy Park dense?
Reba Haas on 08 10, 2007
“Word has come forward that Normandy Park has denied further discussion of downzoning lots below 15,000 sqft with the developer who originally proposed 7,200 sqft and 9,000 sqft lots (both denied) on a buildable 3.6 acre parcel in the city. The developer and Futurewise have appealed Normandy Park all the way to the Supreme Court, which now appears the only option to force Normandy Park to accept density. The Growth Board ruled against Normandy Park two years ago for not meeting growth demands, but a Superior Court Judge overturned that decision.The MBA is considering a brief to support the developer in his push for smaller lots and more density.”
I like Normandy Park and I can understand why they may not want to join in on the movement toward higher density, but like Kirkland, they are being a bit “arrogant” as the MBA calls them (the title to this article was “Normandy Park remains arrogant”) in that they somehow don’t see why they need to participate in the Growth Management Act mandates that all cities are to implement with respect to growth and developing more density to minimize uncontrolled sprawl.
Readers, what do you think? Should Normandy Park get away with ignoring GMA mandates?
About the Author: Rebecca Haas
- Author's website: http://www.TeamReba.com
- More posts by Reba Haas
- email the author
12 Responses to “Is Normandy Park dense?”
Leave a Reply
Live Comment Preview
Popular Posts
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Jerry Gropp Architect AIA: That's not so good.
- Jerry Gropp Architect AIA: As to "you must be s
- Rhonda Porter: Some of the fine tun
- Rhonda Porter: you must be so excit
- Jerry Gropp Architect AIA: Hi Rhonda- Good to s
I think a good compromise would be for the developer to be able to turn the parcel into 12 lot-nuggets, but take the remaining acre and a half and convert it to public open space.
I guess the answer depends on what your stand is on density, whether it’s good or bad. I think in suburban Seattle we are seeing something of a double-edged sword in that on the one hand, our topography and political climate encourage density but we don’t have the infrastructure in place to really handle it except for in the close-in locations. Yet, without the density to begin with, there is not a strong economic argument for creating the infrastructure.
Yeah, I’m referring obliquely to light rail.
There’s no free lunch. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates that local/regional governments come up with their own growth and boundary plans in compliance with the act and follow them. Urban areas are allowed to have higher density, while rural areas are not. Since I’m not intimately familier with the GMA, I don’t know if it prohibits local jurisdictions from limiting density within an urban growth area–that’s the crux of the matter that I suspect is being challenged in court.
It’s a double-edged sword–we have the GMA to keep endless suburban sprawl from going all the way up to Snoqualmie Pass. This means that one day, the lovely pasture behind my house will someday be covered by 10 houses, eliminating my kitchen window view of Mt. Baker on a clear day. I won’t like seeing a 2-story McMansion four feet on the other side of my back yard fence, but then again, I can walk one block to a beautiful park to enjoy some partially-forested open space, or drive an hour and be in the mountains devoid of human development. I don’t really want to look at the side of another house out my window, but I’d more strongly rather not see endless sprawl in the wilderness . . .
I don’t think very many people are aware that the GMA exists and what it entails, from reading the comments on local RE blogs. I’m a bit more familiar with it because my father has been involved in several court cases against two counties in this state who are not in compliance with the GMA.
“our topography and political climate encourage density but we don’t have the infrastructure in place to really handle it except for in the close-in locations.”
HUH? We don’t have the infrastructure for sprawl! The lack of density is what caused the need for light rail. If we all lived in a single tower in the middle of downtown, we would have no traffic problems (elevator backups, perhaps). If we all lived downtown, we’d have no debate over the viaduct or light rail. Density leverages the same infrastructure over more people. LACK of density requires extra roads, pipes, services and goods transport …
So yes, they SHOULD have to comply with the GMA.
V–I agree with you but those are the arguments that are being used to try to kill light rail. That we don’t have the density to support it. I personally support it whether the density currently exists or not because I am one of those who believes that if you put the infrastructure in place, people might just be willing to change their habits to use the infrastructure that is built. But you’ll never know unless you give them options.
And I assure you that none of your arguments will sway the citizens of Normandy Park (or similar areas such as the northern suburbs where I happen to live). The residents there are all for density, growth and progress as long as it is not in their backyard.
Oops, did I just say that? I guess that is my inner urbanite coming out!
(PS–I agree that they should have to comply with the GMA, I’m just trying to provide you with some insight as to why they are going to fight it tooth and nail…much the same way that the citizens of Mukilteo are fighting the expansion of Paine Field, regardless of the benefits to the rest of the Seattle area).
Thanks, Sandy, I hear you loud and clear and believe that the NIMBY syndrome is alive and kicking in many a city neighborhood. I’m with you on building infrastructure to support long term transit goals. If the general Seattle area is truly growing by roughly 50,000 people per year and this trend is expected to continue through for about 20 years then we should have some alternate modes of transportation to handle the 1.2 Million extra people because our current road system certainly can’t do it.
I am all for the builder in Normandy Park being able to have smaller lots. But there is NO way I want to see smaller lots all throughout Normandy Park. The larger lots are what makes, Normandy Park, Normandy Park. (I own 1.5 acres in the Park & love not seeing my neighbors) If the City council would make a compromise and let smaller density lots only along the 1st Ave. corridor (which is already mostly commercial and finally getting a facelift) and if that would satisfy GMA then I would love to see that.
http://www.morehomes.com & http://www.LivingInNormandyPark.com
Dustin
Wow! This is the first time I think I’ve ever seen another “Dustin” taking part on RCG. You confused me for a second!
Welcome!
When we see another ARDELL…we’ll think we’re in an alter universe.
Reba,
Can you expound on your comment about Kirkland being arrogant? It feels pretty dense here to me, as far as lot sizes go.
Right on there can never be to many Dustin’s giving their opinions.
That word came from the MBA specifically and not me although I do use it in my post. Kirkland has not kept up with its GMA mandates and while you might “feel” like there is more density in the city, according to planners who work there, Kirkland pretty much nets out zero when you take into account tear downs. It seems like a like of development is going on, but it’s mostly re-development of the same lots and there isn’t enough gain of NEW building lots to meet GMA requirements.